|
Monday, 22 March 2010 12:35 |
|
…accuse non-conformers of being a troll…
ACG, I think it is unfair to accuse me of being a troll. The subject of this thread is vaccination of pets, i.e. the Daily Mail’s report "Vaccines ‘are making our dogs sick as vets cash in’". I am on topic, and I have endeavoured to contribute another perspective to the discussion. I have provided evidence to support the argument that animals are indeed being unnecessarily vaccinated, and needlessly put at risk of adverse reactions (and possible long-term health problems), which the WSAVA guidelines acknowledge are grossly under-reported.
ACG, you suggest Angry Mob “is dedicated very specifically to the subject to sloppy uk tabloid journaliam” (sic). The author of this thread, ‘Uponnothing’, obviously went to some effort to do some research on the topic of vaccination of pets. One might think he/she might appreciate some additional, referenced information from somebody with an interest in evidence-based veterinary medicine, to provide more substance to the discussion. Isn’t that the point…or is it?
Re your comment "i'll say again, i was critising your dismissal of peer review, and nothing more" (sic). This is incorrect. In your Comment No. 13 you disagreed that vaccination was controversial, and in your Comment No. 15 you insinuated there was not "a valid question to be argued". You sought to dismiss my referenced argument about unnecessary vaccination of pets with your poorly informed opinion. I suggest this is 'sloppy'...
In your Comment No. 17 you said "if you don't want to have a conversation about peer reivew specifically i suggest in future not replying to people who do" (sic). I did in fact have some conversation with you about peer review, and my comments about the ‘complex world of scientific evidence’ in my Comment No. 14 are relevant here, but I suspect they went over your head. My reference to the paper “From Evidence-based Medicine to Marketing-based Medicine: Evidence from Internal Industry Documents” in my response to Kathryn in my Comment No. 9 is also very pertinent. The entire paper is currently accessible via this link: http://i.bnet.com/blogs/spielmans-parry-ebm-to-mbm-jbioethicinqu-2010.pdf
ACG, you are the one who did not want to engage in the main topic of this thread, i.e. unnecessary vaccination of pets…
Despite our differences ACG, I do thank you for your references to alternative sites. It would be good to access some blogs that encourage thoughtful and well-sourced debate and constructive criticism rather than off the cuff opinion. I've checked out 'Bad Science' and registered, so I'll raise the issue there soon and see what response that elicits.
Thanks also for the tip re setting up my own blog. I’ve thought about this in the past, but I haven’t had time to do this, as much of my limited ‘spare time’ is actually spent on researching and lobbying on the international scandal of unnecessary vaccination of pets, which has now turned into quite a time-consuming hobby. It’s more effective for me to continue lobbying the authorities, and to post on open and transparent blogs where the topic is under discussion, including references and links when I’m allowed. Criticising vaccination on any level appears to be taboo, it’s very difficult to engage in open and transparent debate on this subject. I suggest it is a topic that could do with much more scrutiny and review, particularly after my eye-opening experiences dealing with the veterinary ‘profession’.
Also, here’s a little tip for you… If you draft your comments in Word before copying and posting on a blog, the spell checker will highlight spelling errors. Online dictionaries are also freely available. I suggest comments appear more erudite without misspellings, but perhaps I'm just old-fashioned...or just old...
Thanks for our chat ACG.
Bye
Elizabeth
|
